LIF Analysis
LIF Analysis
UNC Public Policy Capstone
myFutureNC
Charlotte Goldstein, Anish D’Souza, Nicole
Boots, Eilah Wood, Edward Lezada
UNC Public Policy Capstone
myFutureNC
Charlotte Goldstein, Anish D’Souza, Nicole
Boots, Eilah Wood, Edward Lezada
Novemeber 18, 2024
Novemeber 18, 2024
1 Executive Summary
This report presents extensive and detailed findings about the NC Commerce Local Innovation Fund (LIF). The LIF is primarily a workforce development grant, and provides a block grant to a collection of partners that includes a NC Region workforce development board, a locally appointed group of community leaders who are tasked with planning and oversight responsibilities for workforce programs and services in their respective areas. We analyzed how LIF grants can connect to myFutureNC’s long-term goals to improve degree completion and workforce alignment in North Carolina. Our team considered questions such as: What makes a successful intervention program? Are LIF resources being distributed effectively? and how to define success for LIF funded programs? To answer these questions, our report analyzes literature on successful workforce and education interventions, describes findings from stakeholder interviews, analyzes available labor force data, and provides a case study of one project, Building Hope, to illustrate LIF implementation. Our team found that successful interventions aimed at increasing educational or workforce attachment—defined as establishing or strengthening individuals’ stable connection to employment through skills training, credentialing, and support services—typically included several key features: opportunities to earn income, wraparound support services, credentials that lead to a degree or could be applied to future degrees, and post-program retention and support.
Our stakeholder analysis includes insights from five individuals across three different LIF projects, reinforcing myFutureNC’s best practices:
- Streamline Systems to Make Education for High-Demand Jobs more accessible.
- Target Outreach and Communication Strategies to Underserved and/or Underrepresented Adult Learners.
- Develop Employer-provided educational assistance for Current/Future Employees.
- Scale Effective Approaches to Increase Adult Learner Re-enrollment.
- Provide Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Methods.
Our quantitative analysis yielded evidence that there are large gaps in workforce attachment accessibility in North Carolina by county, particularly for individuals with disabilities and those who have been formerly incarcerated. This report suggests looking at counties with particularly wide disparities for workers with additional attachment barriers as a possible strategy for resource allocation in future and current workforce development funding initiatives.
Our case study focuses on Building Hope, a LIF funded project focused on increasing the labor supply of construction professionals through including more women and gender minorities in the field. Our case study analyzed the evidence gathered in the interviews against best practices evidence from the Literature Review stage to identify that the Building Hope project was highly successful in Labor Market Outcomes, Diversification Strategies, Affordability, and Completion Rates, and Moderately Successful in Applicability of Credentials. This suggests a strong program design, which may provide valuable best practices for future LIF projects. However, data from our quantitative analysis indicate that other counties in the state may have had greater need for this type of program.
Finally, we highlight the need for strategic adjustments to the LIF to enhance its impact and ensure equitable workforce development across North Carolina. Key policy recommendations include:
- Refocusing on capacity-building grants to empower resource-limited organizations.
- Simplifying compliance processes to reduce administrative barriers.
- Targeting support for high-need community organizations.
By prioritizing these strategies, the LIF can better serve underserved regions, foster sustainable program growth, and strengthen partnerships that deliver long-term workforce and educational outcomes. A particular emphasis on replicating successful models, like the Building Hope project, underscores the importance of addressing workforce disparities and promoting diversity in high-demand fields.
2 Literature Review
This Literature Review serves as a summary of relevant research on educational and workforce development programs with the purpose of informing the implementation of North Carolina’s Local Innovation Fund. The Local Innovation Fund (LIF) is a block grant that the North Carolina state government awards to a workforce development board for a project that addresses local or regional workforce issues (NCWORKS Local Innovation Fund | NC Commerce).
The goal of this literature review is to evaluate policy measures aimed at addressing MyFutureNC’s postsecondary completion and workforce alignment goals—degree completion rates, labor market alignment, opportunity youth, labor force participation, and family-sustaining wages—with the intention of using this research as a foundation to evaluate and provide recommendations on how to best maximize the LIF to achieve these goals (MyFutureNC). This report will first provide an overview of relevant labor market measures and comment on relationships between education, unemployment, labor force participation, and wages. Next, it addresses policy interventions targeted toward opportunity youth, educational achievement and workforce development, summarizing recent theories and providing evidence on the success of individual programs and practices, highlighting what the research considers to be most promising.
This Literature Review finds mixed results on the efficacy of policy interventions to increase long-term earnings through education or workforce development, with programs that result in degrees or other credentials tending to provide a better return on investment. Other promising practices include providing wraparound services and post-program completion retention services to ensure successful workforce attachment.
2.1 Labor Market Overview
In line with Labor Force Transition goals set by myFutureNC, this section seeks to review literature that attempts to establish relationships between education and a person’s economic outcomes. In North Carolina, myFutureNC identified a Labor Force Participation Rate of 84 percent, and Family-Sustaining Wage earners at 54 percent of North Carolina residents, indicating that there is need for policy intervention to expand quality work opportunities to reach myFutureNC’s goal of 86 and 66 percent labor force participation and family-sustaining wage earners respectively.
“THERE IS NEED FOR POLICY INTERVENTION TO EXPAND QUALITY WORK OPPORTUNITIES TO
REACH MYFUTURENC’S GOAL OF 86 AND 66 PERCENT LABOR FORCE
PARTICIPATION AND FAMILY-SUSTAINING WAGE EARNERS.”Literature corroborates MyFutureNC supporting educational attainment as a path to improving these metrics, as research has demonstrated a negative correlation between years of education and unemployment, and a positive correlation between education and wages (Samuels, 2018). Hennessey and Reed identify that Labor force participation is low and declining for Americans considered to have less skills and educational attainment (2019). The researchers argue that as the average per-worker tax burden in relation to the total tax burden is higher when fewer people work and pay taxes. This is because those who are not employed do not contribute income or payroll taxes but often draw upon services funded with taxes. As more people leave the labor force, those remaining are left paying a proportionally larger percentage of the total tax burden, even if their discrete tax burden remains the same.
Due to the potential challenges of a decreasing tax burden, Hennessey and Reed entreat policymakers to be concerned with increasing the labor participation rate for economic outcomes and social cohesion (2019). Using data from 2016, Hennessey and Reed show that there are large differences by education level, with a 14-percentage point gap for men and a 33- percentage point gap for women between those without a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher. This gap is 9% and 15% respectively between high school graduation and a bachelor’s degree. While this is old data, it shows a correlation between education and labor force participation. The brief identifies an expanded safety net, decreased opportunities for low-income workers, and high rates of incarceration as potential factors in low and declining labor force participation. The piece also mentions decreased geographic mobility, licensing barriers, decreased bargaining power, high marginal tax rates, addiction, home care, and unofficial sources of income as possible contributors to the phenomenon. In discussion of the piece findings, this literature review identifies that the state has a motivation to address factors that can improve labor force participation and, as education has been identified as a meaningful correlate, invest resources into education as a potential method for resolving a low labor force participation rate. To address the state’s role in education, this paper highlights an argument by The Aspen Institute, which suggests that K-12 education should prepare students to pursue college, a career, or both. It emphasizes that some level of postsecondary education or training is often necessary to earn a family-sustaining wage. In pursuit of providing sufficient opportunity for its residents, the next section will explore research on youth who lack educational or employment opportunities and review literature evaluating programs that attempt to resolve challenges youth face attaching to career or education.
2.2 Opportunity Youth
Opportunity youth, also known as NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) or upcoming youth, refers to young people who are disconnected from both work and education. This classification is often determined at a singular point in time, but these statuses can fluctuate over a young person’s early adulthood. In service of this reality, Palmer & Connolly seek to establish a new model for identifying youth disconnected from education and employment (2023). The Palmer and Connoly paper argues against a either-or model, and instead identifies 8 different patterns for connection to education or work during one’s young adulthood using a retroactive longitudinal study of Panel Study of Income Dynamics Transition into Adulthood Supplement (PSDTAS) data. These patterns included:
- those who are consistently connected,
- those who are consistently disconnected,
- those who start their young adulthood connected and end their young adulthood disconnected,
- those who start disconnected and end connected, and
- those whose connection fluctuates (three distinct patterns).
The article argues that temporary disconnection from education or work is not an outcome but part of a developmental process, and should be treated as such by policy interventions. The authors argued that workforce and education support should extend into the mid-twenties to capture the heterogeneity in developmental trajectories faced by those whose workforce connectedness experiences have different timing and duration.
In an attempt to identify what services are most attractive to Opportunity youth, this assessment will turn to Quinlan-Davidson et. al’s 2024 study. The study surveyed Canadian youth who were either opportunity youth or at risk of becoming opportunity youth using a discrete choice experiment.
The results indicated a preference for job and educational services, with strongly preferred services including life skills, mentorship, basic income, and securing work or educational placements. Youth were found to have a preference for these services, which may be helpful in guiding attempts to recruit youth for relevant programming. This evidence is presented in this paper with the caveat that services desired by youth are not synonymous with effective programs, and since these results were acquired by survey instead of revealed preference experiments, it is possible there is self reporting bias that affects the results. In addition, it is not a guarantee that opportunity youth in North Carolina will have the same preferences as Opportunity youth in Canada. The results, however, do give meaningful suggestions that may be considered by programs in lieu of more directly applicable results.
Looking at the implementation of programs designed to lower barriers for Opportunity youth, Anderson et. al reviews the outcomes of programs intended to reconnect youth to education or employment (2017). The researchers identified the goals of these programs as building personal/academic skills and aspirations, developing the ability to live independently, attaining educational benchmarks, and embarking on a career pathway. The study identified several challenges the programs faced including recruitment, the inability to fund wraparound supports, and subsequent retention challenges. Anderson’s paper identified earning opportunities as an opportunity to address income as a barrier.
This is in line with Quinlan-Davidson’s 2024 finding that basic income is an attractive support service for youth. Anderson’s paper also suggested offering non academic programming such as social and cultural opportunities as a useful addition to standard youth programming. This may be an interesting option to consider when looking at improving recruitment and retention. Bloom’s 2010 study also sought to evaluate several programs that took place in the late 20th century and early 21st century targeting youth without high school diplomas. While many programs had positive short-term results, most faded with time.
Bloom emphasized how GED completion was not analogous to a high school diploma in the labor market, and a better goal for pushed-out youth is to achieve post-secondary credentials in the form of either occupational certificates or college degree attainment. He also argued that some youth may not have the desire or aptitude to transition to college, and programs must be multifaceted to recognize the heterogeneity of opportunity youth. Some of this heterogeneity can be explained by income. The article discussed how of those who do not complete high school, those from high-income families are more likely to return to education than those from low-income families. This socio-economic aspect may be important to consider when making decisions on to whom programs should be targeted. Bloom further recognized challenges in evaluating and implementing programs as programs require voluntary engagement and may struggle to reach certain populations of opportunity youth. This may lead to only certain populations of highly motivated or better resourced youth seeking out programs. This points to the findings of previous studies identifying that recruitment remains a significant challenge for implementing policy interventions for Opportunity youth.
2.3 Educational Programs
Recognizing how education has been linked to positive economic outcomes, the following section of this review will be dedicated to programs and implications of increasing educational attainment. Helping to quantify the importance of expanding educational attainment, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) highlights outcomes for single mothers who receive an associate’s degree. The IWPR report identifies that single mothers who attain an associate’s degree are 44 percent less likely to live in poverty and will save the state of North Carolina $24,971 dollars in public assistance spending over a lifetime. The fact sheet uses this information to argue that governments should invest in support for single-mother students, identifying the return on investment for childcare supports, case management, and financial aid spending as $4.97 to $5.61 on the dollar.
“THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR CHILDCARE SUPPORTS, CASE MANAGEMENT, AND
FINANCIAL AID SPENDING AS $4.97 TO $5.61 ON THE DOLLAR.”The findings suggests investing in accessible and affordable child care for student parents, reducing barriers to student eligibility for state child care, and requiring data collection on students’ parent status and educational outcomes. It shows the potential of public investment in improving economic outcomes for the individual as well as a state. Johnson and coauthors 2015 report recommended that California increase the number of college graduates in the state by increasing access to four-year colleges, noting that those who enroll in four-year colleges are much more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than those who enroll at a community college.
The report recommends implementing strategies to improve completion rates and reduce time-to-degree statistics, as well as expanding transfer programs from community colleges to California State Universities and University of California campuses. It also advocates for using grants and aid programs to reduce financial barriers to attendance. Love and Meza (2023) further explore differences between four-year and two-year institutions, proposing that two-year colleges be permitted to grant bachelor’s degrees instead of solely encouraging transfers to four-year institutions. Their findings reveal that while approximately 80% of community college students aspire to earn bachelor’s degrees, only 23% of full-time community college students transfer to a four-year college and complete a bachelor’s degree within six years. The authors argue that allowing community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees could enhance access, particularly for rural, working, and adult students. For those seeking terminal degrees at majority-associate-granting institutions, they note that transfer and articulation agreements often fall short in providing sufficient support to earn necessary credentials. Many stakeholders agree that bachelor’s programs at community colleges offer a more affordable and geographically accessible option for students. However, there are concerns that expanding bachelor’s degree programs at community colleges may lead to tuition increases, especially if such programs exceed 10% of the college’s offerings. Additionally, while some worry that community college bachelor’s degrees might not hold the same value in the labor market, no conclusive evidence has been found to support this concern.
Love and Meza advocate for expanding four-year degree programs at community colleges, emphasizing the diversity of the enrolled cohorts and the comparable completion rates. They highlight that community college bachelor’s degree (CCB) students represent a diverse group, encompassing ethnic and racial diversity as well as nontraditional students such as returning students, parents, and veterans. Their analysis of existing four-year CCB programs shows promising results: in Washington State, CCB students had a 68% completion rate, similar to those who transferred to public universities. In California, CCB students even outperformed California State University transfer students in graduation rates. Beyond graduation rates, there is evidence supporting CCB outcomes. In Florida, CCB graduates exhibited employment and continuing education rates comparable to those of peers with associate degrees. Love and Meza suggest that programs in fields like healthcare, IT, and business could offer particularly strong employment and earnings potential for CCB graduates. While their research does not definitively establish how CCB bachelor’s degrees compare to traditional four-year degrees, it indicates potential for expanding college access statewide. In considering resources for supporting college attendance, Bound and Turner highlight a negative correlation between cohort size and completion rates, suggesting that larger cohorts may receive fewer resources per student, potentially lowering completion rates. They argue for increased government funding, noting that student fees cover only 12% of total education costs at public institutions. Additionally, they point out that the supply of higher education is not perfectly elastic, meaning institutions cannot easily expand enrollment to match growing demand for degrees.
They suggest a policy strategy to address this resource gap, noting that as student enrollments increase with a fixed endowment or subsidy, the resources available per student decrease. The overall capacity of degree-granting institutions is therefore critical when designing interventions to encourage higher education in North Carolina. Considering resource limitations, Hemelt et al. (2018) examined institutional costs per student across various fields of study. The analysis revealed that math instruction is the least costly, with costs 22% lower than those for an English degree, while electrical engineering emerged as the most expensive, with instructional costs 109% higher than for English. These cost variations are primarily attributed to class sizes and, to a lesser extent, instructor salaries. Hemelt et al. suggest that institutions could consider these cost differences when setting tuition and allocating resources, potentially adjusting fees by college or field. The study further encourages policymakers to reflect on the social return of educating students in high-earning, albeit costly, fields. Understanding these cost implications is essential when developing programs aimed at channeling students into specific fields of study.
2.4 Workforce Development
Recognizing the goal of creating more effective programs, several scholars have put forth theories on how to improve workforce development interventions. This section of the literature review is dedicated to discussing relevant theories of workforce development that meaningfully contribute to an understanding of recent scholarship on the topic. Hong’s 2022 article argues for including Psychological Self-Sufficiency (PSS) as a measure to assess the success of workforce development programs. Psychological self sufficiency is a process defined by understanding employment barriers combined with facilitating hope for employment. This joint process is meant to activate goal-driven behaviors. Hong’s article provides evidence that change in PSS affects Economic Self-Sufficiency using a convenience sample of 350 low-income jobseekers in a pathway program—Health Profession Opportunity Grant (HPOG) (2022). The paper argues that traditional workforce development programs rely too heavily on either supply-side or demand-side labor market needs, without focusing on underlying barriers that cause friction between job seekers and employers. It concludes that PSS can link workforce development and human resource development to motivate job seekers to pursue employment and career advancement. Understanding the attitudes of successful job seekers may be significant in shaping stakeholder perception of successful program design. In 2024, Hong published another article advocating for integrating PSS into our understanding of career readiness, employing the Transforming Opportunities into Productivity model to shift workforce development from a demand-side practice (focused on employers’ needs) to supply-side supports (focused on addressing job-seekers’ needs). The article discusses the success of TIP, a program that incorporated PSS, and used that as a platform to propose TOP, a framework for employers to use to create an inclusive workplace culture.
This article creates a platform for including employers as stakeholders in the workforce development framework, expanding on Hong’s earlier work on PSS. Preemptively contrasting Hong’s theory of labor supply- side supports, Spaulding & Sirois in 2022 suggest workforce-aligned strategies to ensure that graduates of post-secondary programs match the demand of employers. These authors suggest a framework for programs to include supporting career decisions and navigation, building skills for work, and connecting to employment. Acknowledging that students have different levels of knowledge surrounding professional norms, the authors suggest early, consistent, and integrated advising and career assessment and exploration for students in market-aligned programs. The study also emphasizes the importance of contextualizing learning, teaching industry-demanded skills and credentials, and including work-based learning. Finally, connection to employment should include supporting job search, communicating with employers, and assisting with transitions. The authors emphasize the importance of following program participants to the next stage in their employment or educational journey to ensure successful attachment. Expanding on successful strategies for program design, Jyotishi & Palmer recommend that non-degree workforce development programs employ the following strategies based on a review of the literature:
- Lead to quality jobs with strong labor market outcomes that provide a living wage and career growth opportunities,
- Have concrete goals of diversifying programs by identity attributes,
- Provide graduates with credits that can count toward future degrees,
- Be affordable, and
- Have strong completion rates.
In an attempt to measure the efficacy of workforce development practices, Oh et. al ’s 2021 article identified successful practices of Human Capital Development (HCD) programs implemented since the 1996 “work-first” reforms. The article criticizes past federal programs for not leading to certificates, not resulting in higher earning gains. It found that programs that led to earnings above poverty thresholds for a family of three have the following characteristics:
- Designed curriculums based on targeted high- demand occupations in the local economy,
- Provided financial assistance and wrap-around supports,
- Offered on-the-job training and employment opportunities via strong partnership with employers, and
- Include post-program job retention and career advancement services.
Similar to the Jyotishi and Palmer brief, the Oh paper emphasizes the importance of post-program services, highlighting the need for retention efforts due to the higher-than-average turnover rate among low-skill workers. It also notes that more effective programs provide long-term opportunities for higher education and sector-specific credentialing before entering the labor market. Successful job skills training programs typically offer one to six months of pre-employment training, with many also providing three to six months of trial work or internships following training. Additionally, successful organizations often designate dedicated staff for employer outreach and partnership building.
These findings are significant for designing evidence- based programs and ensuring designs are implemented properly. Research by Holzer also attempted to address program outcomes, analyzing the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)’s findings on two workforce development programs: Project Quest and Year Up (2022). WWC found that Project Quest had positive impacts on credit accumulation and stronger evidence of attainment of credential certificate or license while having a negative effect on postsecondary degree attainment and zero impacts on earnings. For the Year up program, WWC identified positive impacts on short- term earnings and zero impacts on employment or credential completion. Holzer argues that the WWC’s findings are too harsh and criticizes their choice to find statistical significance levels between .05 and .1 to be insignificant. The author also criticizes WWC’s choice to only look at three, five, and seven-year outcomes rather than intermediate years. The author argues that Year Up generates positive impacts on short-term earnings and employment. The author also argues that had more recent publications been included in WWC’s report, they would have found more positive impacts. This contention between methods of analysis shows the difficulty in assessing the impact of programs. In combination with concerns of volunteer bias mentioned in earlier program evaluation, the Holzer article serves as a reminder of the challenges of research and analysis for methods of possible policy interventions.
2.5 Implications
The literature suggests that the success of various educational and workforce development programs depends on factors such as program design and available resources. Programs that provided credits towards a credential or degree, programs that provide wraparound supports, and programs that provided follow-up support were identified as being particularly successful. The results of educational and workforce interventions overall are more mixed, with some showing only short-term improvements, no improvements, or worse outcomes compared to non- program participants. This suggests the need for careful design and implementation to ensure responsible intervention. It also indicates the importance of careful data collection to serve programs in evaluating their success and adjusting course if needed to try and create the best possible outcomes. Key practices that support MyFutureNC’s goals of enhancing family-sustaining wages, educational attainment, labor market alignment, and connecting opportunity youth—such as funding grants, creating income opportunities, promoting credentialing, providing support services, and implementing post-program retention efforts—align closely with priorities identified in the literature. This literature review will serve as a foundation to analyze the implementation of LIF projects, attempting to identify any overlap between practices in the literature and practice identified through interviews and data research.
APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY
To complete this literature review, the authors completed a search of key terms using the Harvard Kennedy School’s think tank search filter and ProQuest social services abstracts. Key terms included: “workforce development grants,” “workforce development college,” “workforce development university,” “workforce development degree attainment,” “workforce development degree + ‘North Carolina’ attainment,” “degree attainment,” “degree attainment + “North Carolina”,” “Labor force match,” “labor market needs ‘North Carolina’,” “North Carolina ’degree production,” “Labor Market Alignment,” and “family sustaining wage.” The authors selected articles for review in the first five pages of search results based on the recency and relevancy of each article.
3 Stakeholder Analysis
The Qualitative/Stakeholder Analysis section of the UNC-Chapel Hill research project is intended to explore the success and challenges of past Local Innovation Fund (LIF) recipient organizations in collaboration with myFutureNC. We conducted interviews with five individuals working for partner organizations—individual stakeholders and organizations within the larger grantee organizations. Among them were representatives from two 2023 recipients, “Building Hope – Preparing Gender Minorities for Careers in Construction” and “OPT-IN and J.E.T.: Creating Opportunities for Opportunity Youth,” as well as the 2024 recipient “Keeping It REEL (Re-Entry Entrepreneurship and work-based Learning).”
Similar to our findings in the quantitative report, these stakeholders find that addressing disparities in hard-to-reach populations provides the most effective results in closing the attainment gap. The interviewees also touched on other aspects of myFuture NC’s list of best practices, including statewide research and development on successful collaboration methods. Several individuals noted that the most effective workforce results are obtained by working alongside successful, established organizations. Other methods include the expedition of bureaucratic measures and deliverables, as this was said to be one of the most challenging obstacles in enacting meaningful change.
The goals of these partner organizations are largely the same, despite handling various populations within the state. Therefore, the educational attainment and workforce development needs of these groups differ, as do the organizations’ approaches to addressing them. However, our findings are limited to the 2023 and 2024 grantee groups, as we did receive responses from the majority of organizations that received grants before this period. We believe that past grantees may be collaborating less within partnership groups as a result of the two-year grant period structure. We will now discuss the recipient organizations from which we were able to collect data.
3.1 Recipient Overviews
2024 Recipient:
Keeping It REEL (Re-Entry Entrepreneurship and work-based Learning):
For the 2024 recipient, the grant award amount is $125,000 over a two-year period in which partner organizations track the progress of program participants. A portion of the American Rescue Plan Act, the State Fisical Recovery Fund, is the source for this year’s innovation grant.
This grant recipient invests resources to train formerly incarcerated individuals through the Pitt County Reentry Council. We interviewed two people working on this project: Jennie Bowen – Board Director of Rivers East Workforce Development Board – and the NC IDEA Foundation Senior Director of Strategic Partnerships Barry Ryan. Bowen noted that the reentry course is not required for the recently released but is strongly encouraged. The partnership works with participating employers in Pitt County to provide individuals with up to 480 hours of paid work experience. The course also provides entrepreneurial skills necessary to start a business. It is worth noting that Keeping It REEL is in the launch stages of resource allocation, so consistent check-ins on progress will be important.
Partners include: the Rivers East Workforce Development Board and the local NCWorks Career Centers overseen by the board, Pitt County Reentry Council, Pitt Community College, the East Carolina University Crisp Small Business Resource Center, and NC IDEA.
2023 Recipients:
The 2023 recipient partnerships, like those in 2024, receive grants that last for two years. However, these grants totaled $225,000 each and were awarded to groups “assisting communities that already have a collaborative team, an innovative idea, and the local support needed to be successful” (NCWORKS Local Innovation Fund | NC Commerce). The source of the 2023 grants is a North Carolina WIOA Title I project supported by the U.S. Employment and Training Administration.
Building Hope – Preparing Gender Minorities for Careers in Construction
The Building Hope grant partnered with several organizations with Chapel Hill-based Hope Renovations – a nonprofit aimed at training gender minorities for careers in construction through apprenticeship. We interviewed Sarah Campbell, the Vice President of Hope Renovations, about the progress of the program following the grant’s one-year mark. Hope Renovations aims to train approximately 40 individuals through this funding. The program lasts for nine weeks, Monday to Thursday for a total of 24 hours a week. Through case management strategies, the organization can provide stipends for housing, transportation, childcare, and other necessities. The participants also receive a credential from the National Center for Construction, Education, and Research.
Partners include: the Capital Area Workforce Development Board, Hope Renovations and Wake Technical Community College.
OPT-IN and J.E.T.: Creating Opportunities for Opportunity Youth
The two joint organizations will work to support ‘opportunity youth,’ which is defined as those who are currently neither in the labor force nor in school. The OPT-IN (“Opportunity Internship”) program is open to recent high school graduates, and participants complete an eight-week internship alongside mentoring and development classes. The grant also launched the J.E.T (“Jobs, Education, and Training) initiative that seeks to provide jobs for opportunity youth aged 18-24 with participating companies in Burke County. The participants in the J.E.T program are also offered mentorship opportunities, and both programs focus their attention on communities of color. In addition to salaries and marketing for the program, a portion of the funding from LIF is used for participant stipends for online courses, transportation, work uniforms, etc. We interviewed Work in Burke program Director Sarah Crisp about the success of the program thus far.
Partners include: Western Piedmont Workforce Development Board, The Industrial Commons and its affiliate program “Work in Burke,” Burke Development, Inc., Western Piedmont Community College, Burke County Public Schools, NCWorks Career Center - Burke County, N.C. Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Meridian Specialty Yarn Group, Inc.
3.2 Methodology
We interviewed five individuals from five different organizations across three Local Innovation Fund grants. We conducted our interviews between September 25 and October 14, 2024.
We developed a list of organization-specific questions before each meeting. Our questions covered topics including organizational goals, implementation timelines, challenges and accomplishments, monitoring methods, and future progress expectations.
Each interview lasted roughly 20 minutes on average.
3.3 Findings
To develop a list of best practices, we integrated insights from our interviews with established best practice frameworks provided by myFutureNC.
Best Practices for Enhancing Workforce and Education Interventions:
Streamline Systems to Make Education for High-Demand Jobs More Accessible
- By expanding access to high-demand jobs, policymakers can address the shortage of skilled workers in certain sectors, increase economic mobility, and increase workforce diversity by reducing key barriers to entry for these fields.
Target Outreach And Communication Strategies to Underserved/Underrepresented Adult Learners
- Due to factors like financial constraints and a lack of information, many communities do not have access to an adequate amount of resources to support adult learning. By expanding outreach to these groups, policymakers can minimize the equity gap and support individuals in an evolving job market.
Develop Employer-Provided Educational Assistance for Current/Future Employees
- Employers are intended to provide future employees with the necessary skills to be successful despite industry changes. By filling sector-specific skill gaps and offering continued educational support, employers are more likely to retain talented employees and leave them better equipped for the industry.
Scale Effective Approaches to Increase Adult Learner Re-enrollment
- Projects like the LIF grant programs provide insight into effective education practices, but the research is often conducted on a smaller group, such as a county. Therefore, it is important to scale these approaches to large communities after the initial research is complete.
Provide Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Methods
- Program evaluation methods are necessary in any educational organization. By using qualitative and quantitative data from participants, these organizations can ensure that their programs address learners’ needs, allocate resources effectively, foster accountability, and adapt as necessary.
Streamline Systems to Make Education for High-Demand Jobs More Accessible:
Improving Accessibility:
Sarah Campbell, a representative from Hope Renovations, highlighted the importance of making their program accessible, attributing their approximate 90% construction program graduation rate to the organization’s “wraparound services,” meaning high-quality services that help guide participants through the program. For example, at Hope Renovations, participants benefit from courses in resume writing, mock interviews, negotiation skills, workplace harassment training, personal finance education, etc. These services aim to empower participants to “get the most out of what they’re getting a new career for,” she said. These services help prepare program participants for a long-term, stable career.
Similarly, Sarah Crisp from Work in Burke emphasized the value of leveraging grant funds for practical support, such as a “transportation fund” or an “internet stipend for someone to do an online course.” Both OPT-IN and JET, along with Hope Renovations, demonstrate how established programs can utilize grant funding and local partnerships to address gaps in connecting with hard-to-reach populations, thereby enhancing the impact of their services for vulnerable communities.
Challenges in Accessibility:
- Crisp also highlighted the challenges of meeting grant requirements, noting that one deliverable required all participants to register through NC Works and WIOA. “It’s a pretty lengthy process, and it added a lot of work for our team as well as for our participants,” she explained. She emphasized that the time and financial commitment involved in navigating these bureaucratic processes posed obstacles to both staff and program participants.
Outreach & Communication Strategies to Underserved/Underrepresented Adult Learners:
Use of Social Media:
- Crisp further discussed overcoming networking and recruitment challenges through the use of social media, stating, “We use the Internet and social media a lot because people in rural areas without a car might still have access to a phone.”
Community Outreach:
Crisp, working on the project OPT-IN and JET, mentioned that they have established strong relationships with high schools, a community college, and other networks. They have also engaged with the substance abuse recovery community by participating in events through the Burke Substance Abuse Network.
She recognizes the importance of reaching young people in rural areas, noting: “We’re also stepping into the faith-based community—there are many churches in the rural South. We know young folks are in those areas and might be disconnected, so we’re trying to be more present there too.”
Hope Renovations also launched a partnership with Wake Tech Community College, offering classes on campus to address the needs of Wake and surrounding counties. As a result, the program has seen increased engagement through word-of-mouth referrals, with participants sharing their positive experiences. “We’re finding more and more people find out about us by word of mouth, because they had a friend who did the program, and they see results. So that’s always a positive sign,” said Sarah Campbell.
Employer-Provided Assistance for Current/Future Employees:
Reentry Policies/Services:
Jennie Bowen from the Rivers East Workforce Development Board explained that initiatives like “Project REEL” offer financial incentives to encourage employers to hire individuals considered higher-risk hires, like formerly incarcerated people. These programs provide tax credits, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), and federal bonding to mitigate potential risks. By serving as a form of insurance, these policies help create opportunities for individuals who might otherwise face barriers to employment.
Barry Ryan, representative from NC IDEA noted: funding often prioritizes “high pay, high skill workforce opportunities” in sectors like manufacturing, leaving reentry individuals with lower-wage, lower-skill job options. To address these challenges, creating programs that establish pathways to entrepreneurship and self-employment can be highly effective.
Case Management Services:
- Providing comprehensive case management is essential to supporting participants in overcoming barriers to employment. Sarah Campbell explained that addressing challenges like food assistance, transportation, childcare, and housing stability helps individuals not only secure a job but also maintain it. To further ease financial burdens, participants receive compensation during the program: “We pay them to participate… because we know that they might be having to reduce hours at another job or take on additional childcare expenses.” By alleviating these obstacles, the program ensures participants can fully engage without sacrificing their financial stability.
Program Evaluation and Continuous Improvement:
Project REEL:
- Jennie Bowen explained, “In our tracking system, they have created a special code. So we’ll be able to input the individuals as they participate in the different activities, and then that system will actually track them for us, as far as wages and data.” This newly implemented program is still in its early stages, and we are currently awaiting results to assess its effectiveness.
OPT-IN and Jet:
- For OPT-IN and JET, Sarah Crisp reported that “We’ve seen a pretty significant decrease in the number of opportunity youth in our county. When we started Opt-In three years ago, we were the third highest in North Carolina. Now, we’re the 18th highest.”
Project Hope:
- For Project Hope, Sarah Campbell explained that they “do a survey on the first day of the program and the last day of the program, and then three months after, one year after, and two years after.” She further explained “Those longer-term surveys are where we’re really capturing… has this significantly changed their life for the better to be on this trajectory?”
3.4 Discussion
Our interviews provide insights into best practices for Local Innovation Fund (LIF)-funded projects. Key themes include the importance of cross-sector partnerships, the impact of wraparound services, challenges posed by bureaucratic processes, the role of technology in outreach, and methods for measuring success. Additionally, it explores how sustainable partnerships can create lasting community impact.
Technology has proven effective in expanding outreach and engaging hard-to-reach populations. Sarah Crisp shared that platforms like Discord help past participants stay connected, receive updates, and access resources. Social media has also been leveraged to engage rural communities, overcoming barriers such as transportation by ensuring access through mobile devices.
Wraparound services, such as food assistance, childcare, transportation, and housing support, play a critical role in setting participants up for success. Representatives noted that alleviating these barriers helps participants not only secure employment but also maintain it. Organizations cited administrative and bureaucratic challenges, such as navigating complex funding processes and meeting rigid reporting requirements. Streamlining these procedures was identified as a priority to enhance program efficiency and ensure services are delivered promptly.
Building sustainable partnerships is critical to achieving lasting impact within communities. Long-term relationships with local stakeholders ensure continuity, resilience, and scalability beyond initial funding periods, fostering long-term benefits for participants and organizations alike. Strong partnerships proved essential for resource-sharing, streamline service delivery, and maximizing grant prospects.
4 Quantitative Analysis
4.1 Summary of Findings
Disability Employment Trends: Our analysis highlighted varying employment and unemployment rates among individuals with disabilities across North Carolina. Almost all counties exhibited favorable employment ratios—generally above 80%. However, counties like Wilson, Pender, and Craven had slightly lower ratios, in the high 70s to low 80s, indicating a need for further support to improve employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities (Section 4.4.1).
Income Disparities and Educational Attainment: The relationship between income and education indicates that higher education is critical for improving economic outcomes, particularly for populations in poverty (Section 4.4.2).
Impact of Poverty on Education: Linear regressions demonstrated strong correlations between poverty levels and educational attainment. The R-squared values indicate that about 89-94% of the variance in educational attainment can be explained by poverty status, suggesting that targeted educational interventions are essential for alleviating poverty and employment disparities (Section 4.4.3).
Juvenile Detention Rates: Alarmingly high juvenile detention rates were observed in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties, signaling an urgent need for additional resources to support youth involved in the justice system and address the high rates of detention in these areas (Section 4.4.4).
Construction Employment Analysis: LIF funded initiatives like Building Hope in 2023 aimed to enhance job opportunities in the construction sector and address gender disparities. While the LIF effectively targeted smaller counties such as Rowan and Cabarrus for construction job availability, resource allocation for reducing gender disparities misaligned with counties having higher male-to-female ratios, particularly in Rockingham (30 men to 1 woman) and Randolph (21 men to 1 woman) (Section 4.4.5).
4.2 Introduction
This analysis is intended to assist myFutureNC in identifying gaps with regards to educational access for marginalized communities. The quantitative data focuses on two populations: people with disabilities and people formerly or currently incarcerated. Educational access is important, as education is correlated with economic well-being. This paper identifies problems with educational access for both populations, demonstrating how this has translated to economic disparities.
Educational Accessibility for People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face barriers to accessing educational opportunities. A meta-analysis by Lyes Welding reveals several important statistics (2023). The study used National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data to find that 72% of students who were under the Disabilities Education Act in 2019-2020 left high school with a diploma, 10% of them left with an alternative certificate, and 16% dropped out (2021). Compared to the graduation rate of 94% among all 18-24 years old in 2019, the NCES identifies a graduation rate gap of 22 percentage points for students under the disabilities education (2021).
Data by the 2023 Annual Disabilities Statistics Compendium reported that “nearly 20% of 25-34 year olds with a disability had a bachelor’s degree or higher”, compared to 41% of people without disabilities. in the same age group (2023). NCES data showed that, “About half (49.5%) of students with disabilities who enrolled at a four-year college in 2011 completed a bachelor’s degree within six years versus roughly 68% of students without disabilities” (2011). All these statistics highlight how educational accessibility differs between people with disabilities, and those without.
This national pattern can be seen within North Carolina. An analysis by the North Carolina Department of Commerce (using NCES data) showed that in 2017, students with a disability had a high school graduation rate of 70.3% (2019).The rate was 86.6% for all students. Disparities are also echoed in the college level. The same analysis states: “By the eighth year after high school, only 17% of those with disabilities obtained any higher education credential, compared to 36% of their peers, and they were much less likely to have obtained a Bachelor’s degree.” It is important to note that this data didn’t factor in credentials from private or out-of-state education, as the findings state. These statistics demonstrate that problems with educational accessibility and people with disabilities are found inside North Carolina.
Differences in educational accessibility manifest in economic disparities, as shown by The Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is said that “Among both groups, those who attained higher levels of education were more likely to be employed than those with less education” (2024). Both groups refer to people with and without disabilities. Since it has been established that people without disabilities tend to be more educated than those with disabilities, it is to be expected that economic statistics between both groups differ. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2023 confirms this as it’s shown that the, “unemployment rate for people with disabilities is about double that for people without disabilities (7.6% vs 3.5%).”
Surprisingly, even among people with the same educational credentials, there are still gaps in employment rates between those with disabilities and those without. Data from the Bureau Labor Statistics in 2022 showed that the unemployment rate among people with disabilities who have “some college or associate degree” was 6.8% compared to 2.9% for people without disabilities with the exact same credentials (2023). This is also reflected in the same data set for “bachelor degrees or higher,” as people with disabilities who have this credential have an unemployment rate of 4.7%. People without disabilities in this category have an unemployment rate of 1.9%. So while educational accessibility does play a role in economic disparities, there may be other factors in play.
Economic disparities between both groups are found in North Carolina, exhibiting the same trend seen nationwide. The North Carolina Department of Commerce states in a blog that “we use data…from the Common Follow-Up System (CFS) to show that much of this disparity can be traced to differences in higher education attainment between those with and without disabilities”. These disparities refer to differences in wages (2019). Several statistics in the same blog back up this claim. Interestingly, in North Carolina, people with disabilities earned more right out of high school compared to people without disabilities. However, this gap is not permanent as it’s later revealed that, “by the 13th year, those with disabilities earned 21% less on average than their peers without disabilities,” with the 13th year meaning the 13th year after high school graduation.
These statistics are a result of differences in educational attainment. According to the blog, the reason that people with disabilities earn more out of high school is that they tend to enter the workforce earlier. Since they are less likely to enroll in college compared to people without disabilities. People who pursue post-secondary education usually work only part-time. People with disabilities,(a demographic underrepresented in higher education) will therefore have higher wages at a time when others work less hours, instead studying. The benefits of attending college begin to accumulate over time, explaining the disparities found in the 13th year after graduation between people with disabilities and those without.
The benefits of attending college are laid out in numerical terms. The NC Department of Commerce says that “high school graduates with disabilities would earn $4,200 more per year if they had the same level of educational attainment as their peers without disabilities.” Furthermore, it is also said that “differences in higher education account for 50% of the wage gap between those with and without disabilities in the 13th year after graduating from high school.” Again, this showcases that differences in educational attainment translate to economic disparities between people with and without disabilities. Policies that aim to increase educational attainment may benefit from focusing on vulnerable populations with less access.
Educational Accessibility for Formerly Incarcerated People
People who have been formerly incarcerated also face barriers to access education. Prison Policy Institute writer Lucius Couloute (2018) states that “a quarter of formerly incarcerated people do not have a basic High School Diploma or GED,” and that “formerly incarcerated people are 8 times less likely to complete college than the general public”.This phenomenon can be explained by the constraints of time spent in jail not spent on credentialing, but also linked to many formerly incarcerated people being expelled or dealt harsh punishments from school administrators. The problem of educational accessibility begins early in life.
The Prison Policy Institute also showcased that formerly-incarcerated people are more likely to obtain General Education Development certifications, compared to the rest of the public. General Education Development certifications, also known as GEDs; are certifications that act as alternatives to traditional diplomas, by testing students on core subjects (NC Community Colleges). Among those with GEDs, formerly-incarcerated people with GEDs are far less likely to enroll in post-secondary education compared to the rest of the public with GEDs (Couloute, 2018). Only 9.6% of formerly incarcerated people with GEDs have taken some college classes compared to 42.6% of the general public with GEDs. Additionally, a staggering 0.7% of formerly incarcerated people with GEDs have actually graduated college, compared to 4.8% of the general public with GEDs (Couloute, 2018). All of these statistics demonstrate that there are gaps in educational accessibility for formerly incarcerated people. These differences in educational attainment and opportunities translate to economic differences with the rest of the population.
The Prison Policy Institute points out that the unemployment rate for formerly incarcerated people is 27%, which is “higher than peak unemployment during the Great Depression” (2018). Problems with educational attainment are responsible for this, as there has been a much stronger demand for skilled work. As the study points out “the last time 25% of adults in the US did not have a high school credential was 1986, when low-skilled jobs were still widely available.” Decades later, “25% of formerly incarcerated people still don’t have high school credentials, and low-skill jobs have largely disappeared.” The lack of education among formerly incarcerated people renders it difficult for them to compete in this current economy, leading to unemployment.
Educational attainment also varies by race and gender, as showcased by the Prison Policy Institute (2008). 60% of formerly incarcerated black women without high school credentials are unemployed, 45% of formerly incarcerated Hispanic women without high school credentials are unemployed. This is compared to the 25% unemployment rate for white men without high school credentials. So while lack of educational attainment has economic impacts on all groups, some groups experience disproportionate effects.
Increasing educational attainment for formerly incarcerated people will not just improve their economic well being, but also has effects on recidivism, as demonstrated by Jesse Kelley (2019). He cites a study that revealed that the “recidivism rate for those with postsecondary education credits was 44 percent lower than those incarcerated within the general population who did not participate in such programs.” Educational attainment has the effect of making society safer. Kelley puts it bluntly, “Research and powerful anecdotes show that postsecondary education programming in particular can enhance public safety, rebuild families, restore dignity to the incarcerated and make fiscal sense for taxpayers.” (2019). Along with a safe society, increasing educational attainment for formerly incarcerated people is economically efficient.
Roadmap for Data
The studies demonstrate that both people with disabilities and formerly incarcerated people suffer from a lack of educational accessibility, which has translated to suboptimal socioeconomic conditions compared to the rest of the population. However, this analysis used large datasets that encompassed the entire North Carolina. To provide strategies for myFutureNC, we narrowed the samples to specific counties. The scope of myFutureNC is a lot smaller, encompassing specific regions in North Carolina and narrowing the scope will allow for more efficient usage of resources since individual counties may have particular needs that are not accounted for in statewide data.
4.3 Data
We utilized data from the United States Census Bureau, focusing specifically on educational attainment and employment statistics for marginalized groups in North Carolina. Since the Local Innovation Fund (LIF) targets county-level initiatives, we chose to analyze data at the county level rather than statewide averages. This approach allows for a more precise understanding of localized needs and opportunities, aligning with LIF’s mission to implement targeted, community-specific interventions.
We focused on two key areas: educational attainment and employment disparities, particularly within the construction industry. The construction industry has historically been male-dominated, and addressing gender disparities within this sector can significantly contribute to broader economic equality and workforce diversity. We analyzed gender disparities in construction employment, as LIF has several programs aimed at reducing gender gaps in traditionally male-dominated fields like construction. By examining the male-to-female employment ratio in the construction sector, we sought to pinpoint counties where gender disparities are most pronounced. This data allows us to identify areas where future LIF programs could focus on encouraging more women to join the workforce, especially in industries where they are currently underrepresented. In addition, the analysis of educational attainment allowed us to assess correlations between poverty levels, racial disparities, and educational outcomes, providing insight into which counties require additional workforce development and educational resources.
Furthermore, we examined economic indicators such as median household income, unemployment rates, and the availability of job training programs. These factors helped provide a comprehensive understanding of the socioeconomic conditions in each county. This multidimensional approach allowed us to assess not only where disparities exist but also the structural factors contributing to them, thus helping us identify which counties could benefit most from LIF’s investments.
4.4 Results
People with Disabilities in the Labor Force Across NC
Our analysis examined employment and unemployment rates among individuals with disabilities in North Carolina. We created a map to visualize unemployment rates across various counties, revealing a trend: counties with higher overall populations tended to exhibit higher unemployment rates among individuals with disabilities.